Report by Channel Newsasia:
SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam said Singapore’s constitutional provision for presidential pardons is similar to what’s practised in countries like the UK, Australia and Malaysia.
He was responding to media queries on the case of convicted drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong.
In 2008, the High Court sentenced Yong to the death penalty for trafficking around 47g of heroin.
On Friday, a High Court judge squashed a petition by defence lawyer M Ravi to review the clemency process, saying that under the constitution, the power to grant pardons lies solely with the Cabinet.
In court, Mr Ravi had also argued that comments made by the minister in May had prejudiced the case.
Asked to respond, Mr Shanmugam said he had been “misrepresented”.
“There have been many misrepresentations about what I said. Those were repeated several times and continued even after Ministry of Law issued a clarification. Some people seem to have difficulties with the facts even after the clarification was issued, and the High Court has dealt with it,” he said.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
How does Shamugam think he has been misrepresented? These were the exact words that he use as reported by the press that his government keeps under a tight noose: “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
At the beginning of last year, Lee Hsien Loong, in one of his government’s many diatribes against having more opposition members of Parliament, stated that he was against a two-party system because it was an adverserial one. Just two weeks later in an SDP-related court case, the presiding judge repeated those exact same words to the SDP defendants. (I’m sure the SDP would be happy to confirm this.)
Is it unreasonable to infer that Shanmugam’s statement about Vui Kong’s case would similarly be taken to heart by the same spineless judiciary, and an unfavourable ruling in his appeal would be the outcome?
Is it unreasonable to infer from his words that he has made up his mind about letting Vui Kong go because it would send what he sees as a wrong signal? (This is itself a misrepresentation on Shanmugam’s part because anti-DP and -MDP activists are NOT asking for Vui Kong to be let go but to be given a sentence proportionate to his crime.)
Is it unreasonable to infer that the rest of the Cabinet, whom judge Steven Chong has ruled has the sole power to grant pardons, shares the view held by Shanmugam given that we have repeatedly been told by Cabinet members themselves that Cabinet decisions – and I presume, the views that preceed those decisions – are undertaken jointly; this is not just Shanmugam’s view but that of the entire Cabinet?
Is it unreasonable to infer that the same government that is known only for its steamrolling of legislation, including the law that Vui Kong has been charged with, does so because it badly wants those legislation?
Is it unreasonable to infer that the Cabinet that so cherihes the legislation that it has put in place will be reluctant to send the contrary signal and pardon someone under the same legislation?
Is it unreasonable to infer that with this ruling, it is now undeniable that the Cabinet, along with Shanmugam himself, has then pre-judged Vui Kong’s clemency possibilities?
It is really too bad for Shanmugam if he wishes to continue in his pathetic state of denial. We are alert to what his government actually gets up to and I am not about to un-know what I already know.
Shanmugam was not misrepresented.
How isit that you defended bhatia and he gets off lightly? he too cocaine and the argument was that he did not know what he snorted? law minister?
Another thing. Shanmugam also said: “Law Minister K Shanmugam said Singapore’s constitutional provision for presidential pardons is similar to what’s practised in countries like the UK, Australia and Malaysia.”
This is probably the most blatant of lies. I believe that both the UK and Australia have abolished the death penalty. So, what pardons is there to give, and what constitutional provisions for the granting of pardons in the UK and Australian constitutions are similar to Singapore’s?
Even the provisions for pardons in Malaysia’s constitution is not similar because there is no possibility of a conflict of interest arising. As a Malaysian contributor to the prvious discussion has written:
“Article 43 of [the Malaysian] Constitution states that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong grants pardons for cases tried in court martial, and the Federal Territories, whereas the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri grants pardon for crimes occuring in his state. Pardons are granted on advice of the Pardons Board, not the Cabinet nor Executive Council of each state.”
Is Shanmugam now going to claim again that he has been misrepresented by this CNA report and issue another ministry statement to the effect?
I always noticed many instances when those MIW are being cornered for what they said, they always says its misintepretation, but they will never elaborate what is the misintepretation clearly or no answer at all, don’t you people noticed that?
now, who misrepresent Law Minister? sue them!!
aiyah, must be MIW’s friends lah, that’s why play nice nice? if its alternative parties’ people?…
Are we being also lied too about our CPF and reserved funds that the President of Singapore can have the power to override how the government can spend or waste our hard earned monies?.Can Mr.Ravi check this one out please.
As i said it before,this Ravi guy could be another DAVID MARSHALL of this generation.
i think ravi must work harder to try to get more international help to help singaporeans here. at least ravi is a lawyer. he knows law and he is well eloquent in talking. compared him with chee soon juan, i think most singaporeans would choose ravi and would not get so annoyed. see the difference , folks?
The way the Law Minister throws around the names of countries such as the UK, Australia and Malaysia one could be forgiven for thinking that he is also implying that the UK and Australia also have the death penalty and that Cabinet in these countries also reign supreme.
In Australia, the Governor-General actually sacked a Prime Minister and therefore the Australian Government in the early 1970s. The authority has not been changed and is still there.
Can you imagine the Singapore President sacking Lee Hsien Loon and the Singapore Government???????
Crap on Shanmugam!!
Lee Hsien Loong has blood on his hands. That silly man chose to make uncalled for comments that angered the Indian hostage takers in 2008 and they killed a Singaporean girl hostage.
Will Shanumugam have blood on his hands too because of his uncalled for comments that prejudiced Vui Kong’s appeal?
When will our politicians develop hearts of compassion?
Hmmmmmmm …. please give him a chance to explain what he actually meant…….
Hmmmmmmm….. maybe can learn some legal English grammer lessons.
“Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
May i asked this law minister, who is the one who state this above statement?
So in which way are you being misinterpreted, Mr Law Minister?
The government has LITERALLY taken away certain constitution power that the President is entitled to, what is being misinterpreted/misrepresented ? This is the same way the government has always taken away rights which is entitled to every citizen, which is the freedom of expression. what is being misinterpreted/mispresented ?
The only misinterpretation/mispresentation is that the government believes that whatever it does is right and no one else can question or challenge the government’s decision/action, and that’s the BIGGEST MISINTERPRETATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. Please remember that the government’s responsibility is to serve the people and not to be a power-hungry, irresponsible, arrogant government.
I wish i have his kind of Salary and power.
Must be feeling so shiok everyday .
Must be feeling like having the best job in the world.
Somemore, the people so nice.
By taking the taxpayers’ monies, and try to live like as if nothing happen every now and then, this is say it will incur and heap curses upon themselves. Because the monies are the hard-earned monies of all true blue singaporeans. And this i say it again. It is the blood monies of singaporeans.
All this ministers will face karma sooner or later. May they face their karma soon.
Misrepresentation = leading to defamation of his character as a Law Minister who has prejudiced court proceedings. So why isn’t he suing???
“Singapore’s constitutional system is no different from that of other countries where a presidential pardon comes with advice from the Cabinet.
The British system is like that, as are the Australian and Malaysian ones, said Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.”
Most likely, the heads of state in Britain, Australia and Malaysia can exercise their own discretion on presidential pardon although they are adviced by the Cabinet. However, according to Judge Steven Chong, Singapore President has no discretion under the Constitution, and specifically under Article 22P, to grant pardons. The power to do so rests solely with the Cabinet.
That would imply that the Cabinet has too much power in its hand based on the Singapore Constitution.
Then why have an elected president if the president has no powers? Should it not be reverted back as before where the president was nominated and confirmed by parliament? This elected president is a farce!
The media quoted Shanmugam as saying:
“Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”
To me, what he said above is crystal clear. There is no misrepresentation.
Is Shanmugam now saying saying that he has been misquoted? Or is he trying to snake his way out of what he said?
Nowsaday…why pappies always claimed MISREPRESENTED, MISQUOTED, MISUNDERSTOOD…wtf
Justice
15 August 2010
Good question. But the judge was interpretating the consitution not on the redundancy of the president in the context of this specific type of pardon.
Don’t you guys know that the 3M, namely MISREPRESENTED, MISINTERPRETED and MISUNDERSTOOD are words often used by politicians and officials to cover their backside every time they did or say something wrong?
Its no wonder some people say they rather listen to dogs bark than listen to politicians speak.
why is Shanmugam so cool if really got people out to tar his name? there have been many misrepresentations… so sue all of them loh. i sure you will win all the cases, then got lots of money for year end holiday trip.
why dun sue, cos its people from MSM, friends of MIWs?
白痴，whole department! waste tax payer money.
preston loon 15 August 2010
Are we being also lied too about our CPF and reserved funds that the President of Singapore can have the power to override how the government can spend or waste our hard earned monies?
…………………
indeed..you don’t need ravi or called the belated honourable david marshall
do you DARED to call leekingyou a LIAR?
it is the big bully leekingyou who says without the presidente prataman..all our RESERVE$ would hav habesh if not properLEE guarded by prataman himself
you know leekingyou’s daughter in law? how come evertime when she go shoppin..
prataman would had said..enough or not?
need more?
How can our Law Minister a professional lawyer himself, of all people, comment on the current laws which will have a direct effect on a presiding appeal case to be concluded in a few weeks time?
Shouldn’t he be cited for contempt of court for trying to influence the decisions of the presiding judge ?
Should he not have the slightest decency at least to decline comment by saying that the answer will have a direct effect on the current appeals case ?
I can only imagine that he was in fact trying to warn the presiding judge that that the cabinet was having an interpretation of their own for the judge to differ at his own peril.
Floods = Act Of God
SMRT Vandals = Responsibility of Singaporeans to be vigilant
Invasion of Foreigners = Daft lazy Singaporeans asked for it
Handcuff Photographer on Flood Photo= For his personal safety
Increase Cost of Public Transportation = Distance based
YOG $400m Over budget = We were a “bit” naive
Sham’s twist & Turn= Denial-I was misinterpreted
…etc = too many snake talk to mention
Conclusion:
We are MIW
We will take ALL Credit
Deny ALL faults
We will Screw ALL Singaporeans
We will win Elections again cos Singaporeans are ;
Kiasi, Kiasu, Kiamsiap, Kaypoh !
Long LEEve The Pee And Pee !
Aiyoh! A former senior counsel cum lawyer as liken to “Shangmu” should have very good command of English but I really wonder why his English’s standard is as deficient as the idiotic Lee Y S!
Sending a “signal”? Due to my poor command of English, I opine that sending a “message” should be a correct and better word to use, and I right to propose that?
I am so sorry to miss out that this bunch of idiotic nerds have insufficient time to learn proper English but lots of time to butter-up, manage-up as well as boot-lick for their puppeteers! How ignorant I am?
This is just another good example of uniquely “meritocratic” system of your Singapore!
Sorry, it should be am I right to propose that?
may i add one more:
Reduce MT weightage saga: I should have chosen my words more carefully, i had created the wrong impression. (by mr ng eng hen}
So all along, the Instana is a P.O Box and president is a $4M a year postman who mails clemency letter to the cabinet huh?
Is this correct interpretation?
In the parlance of the self-acclaimed talented elites from the Pro Alien Party – there is little difference between “Black” and “white” when “Grey” is a blend of these two colors.
In the preferred manner in which the Politicians from the Pro Alien Party will turn a pin on its head, it will allow them the space to redefine the laws to suit their agenda as they please.
When an Attorney-General can re-interpret the law to protect the ministers from the Pro Alien Party, who have clearly contravened the Singapore Election Laws – can there be any honesty left in our Judicial System ?
.
.
“Unauthorised persons inside polling stations – Singapore Attorney-General’s Letter.”
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
So should we send a Queen Counsel to teach him what is law that based on the international countries standard scale?
This law minister brain already turn rusty and he no longer practise his profession anymore, so now he only know how to shit just like LKY. Under the same family.
So WTF is a Presidential pardon if the President is OUT of the equation. corrupted rhetoric !
It’s like saying, there’s ;
No chicken meat in chicken rice
No alcohol in whisky
No milk in Milk shake
No democracy in Singapore…..oops…true hor?
No money left in our CPF account….oops, true again hor?
No monkeys in our gah-men….errr…ok, this one untrue lah! :)
Sha is nothing but an indian chief riding on the coat tail of a tiger. He is not misinterpreted, he is just blowing hot air and after his masters saw his comments, they gave him a beating and now he u turning to provide excuses.
Misinterperation, what a dumb answer by a professional. Shanmugam (Law Min) got Cocaine snorting Dinesh Bhatia out claiming DB did not know and he was a first timer doing Coacine. Now Vu Kong has got to die and his remarks”if Vu kong has to be let off, the message send will be blah bla blah. Listen you Law Minister nobody is asking of the government to let Vui kong go free as you did for Cocaine snorting Dinesh Bhatia. We are saying no death penalty for anyone convicted of possession or trafficking in drugs. Nobodt forces anyone at gunpoint to consume drugs.There is a proper programme for drugs and it can be found within the World Health Organisation. I may be wrong cause as I am not sure of what I am writing about. I could have misinterperated. Peace N Love folks
i think its better to just say, “no comments as case is on”
what kind of law minister we have, know the law and yet ???
why not just say, “he’s malaysian chinese, no connections, we need to give it to them, except for indians from north india, with high connections, we let them off, just kids trying drugs you know lah”
At the end of the day, we only have ourselves to blame as election year after election year, those that are entitled to vote continue to vote for the MIW.
Shanmugam says he had been “misrepresented” or a snake get caught?
My dad once asked me what I would do if I meet a tiger and snake with only 1 bullet in the gun?
I answered shoot the tiger. He said: Son, shoot the snake.
My dad asked again what if I have 2 bullets?
I answered shoot the tiger and the snake.
He said: Son, shoot the snake and the snake.
Shanmugan is merely stating his perspective as Law Minister and is not attempting to advise or warn the cabinet/president.
He is merely stating that the death penalty cannot be lifted purely on the grounds of an accused age as this will consequentially lead to the syndication of youth drug traffickers.
The deterrence impact of the hanging of one far outweighs the damage clemency will result in the lives of under-privilleged and target youth groups whom will become future drug mules.
At the end of the day, we only have ourselves to blame as election year after election year, those that are entitled to vote continue to vote for the MIW.
>> in my opinion, anyone capable of rigging the law is capable of rigging the votes. Don’t always blame the wrong people.
To: Very Senior Political Analyst
Questions: 1. What has the merits and demerits of capital punishment per se to do with political analysis? 2. How effective is hanging as a deterrent?
Clearly hanging does not deter all as drug mules and peddlers continue to be caught and hung. As to the actual extent of any deterrence, we will never ever know. It is anyone’s guess it seems to me. In the meantime the mules get hung but the big end of the drug world are not affected in the least. Will hanging deter the big boys? Not one iota!
Singapore continues to have strong political and economic ties with countries such as Burma from where drugs come. Does this make sense? No. This is what happens when pragmatism takes precedence over principle as a matter of standard practice.
Dinesh Bhatia Case : Cocaine abuser was let off with extremely light sentence with the help of Kannan Shanmugam (current Law Minister of Singapore) and other factors such as his father was a Judge and mother was an ex-MP/NMP. Nobody mention about “What sort of signal are we sending ?”
Yong Vui Kong Case : Law Minister Kannan Shanmugam commented ” If we let him go, what is the signal we are sending ?”
Can the judiciary system in singapore make up its mind what sort of signal it is REALLY intending to send ?
to be fair let Dinesh Bhatia sit for another trial, cos it was a case of miscarriage of justice mah.
then try both him & Yong alternately, but the judgement pass on the same day? why re-trial, that time was “honest mistake”. can’t be helped, so hauled back to re-trial loh…
Given the limited knowledge of law that I have (although I have vast knowledge and experience in singapore politics), is it possible to trial the same person more than once ? If so, how many times can an old case be re-opened ?
Most people knows who the puppet at istana palace. why bother to apply to court in the first place?
misrepresented? dun tok cok lah.. mr sham, you are a lawyer by training, you know how to choose your words, you know the english language like the back of your hands.. dun tok cok, mr sham… PAP you are finished…
So What is a Presidential pardon if the President is OUT of the equation. Bloody corrupted rhetoric !
It’s like saying, there’s ;
No chicken meat in chicken rice
No alcohol in whisky
No milk in Milk shake
No democracy in Singapore…..oops…true hor?
No money left in our CPF account….oops, true again hor?
No monkeys in our gah-men….errr…ok, this one untrue lah! :)
I tried very hard but still am not able to to believe that this law minister defence for dinish bhartia snorting cocaine was… he does no know what he was snorting! How is that believable? But since this is the law minister, he must be right. But he gets off lightly too… from reduced prison terms to house arrest? nothing to do with connection though surely, since this is the law minister who defended the guy… so no preferential treatment.. surely, since his integrity and that of the judiciary is at stake. So, i will try harder to come to terms with my disbelieve. Enough said.
Err…. integrity of our judiciary ? Hello, what is that ah? Singapore have such simple straight forward transparent principles mei ? Slowly wait. LOL. :)
Lawyer for Allen and Gledhill: “He doesn’t know what he was snorting”
Law Minister : “Singapore’s constitutional system is no different from that of other countries where a presidential pardon comes with advice from the Cabinet.
The British system is like that, as are the Australian and Malaysian ones.”